antennagroup.com

With the likes of Oprah, the NBA and CNN all pushing Twitter to the masses, the greatest fear of every tech elite and early adopter is being realized: the mainstream is starting to catch onto the Twitter phenomenon.  Paradoxically, recent research by Nielsen Online found that more than 60% of Twitter users have stopped using the micro-blogging service after one month.  I believe the reason is two-fold: these users didn’t have friends on the service (yet) so they were tweeting into an echo chamber and most important, they weren’t able to fully understand or derive any utility from the service.

Twitter asks a simple question: What are you doing?  Yet this seemingly simple question becomes complex when we try to derive utility from it.  Does it matter what my friend, coworker or stranger is having for lunch or thinks of some movie?  On the surface, the answer is no.  But just below is where all the magic happens.  What makes Twitter so unique amongst its social media compatriots is its ability to allow anyone to seek out conversations they find interesting and relevant and engage in them.  In no other platform do they have this type of immediate access to experts, pundits and knowledgeable individuals on any topic imaginable.

So the next time your friend asks what Twitter’s all about, tell them to think of it as a blank canvas, where they get to paint their own masterpiece.  Or as my mom used to say, “you get out only that which you put in.”

When Congress returns to Capitol Hill from its two week recess next week, it’s expected to tackle the energy bill in earnest. A major provision in the bill that could drastically increase growth in the renewable energy sector is the concept of a national renewable portfolio standard, or RPS. The RPS tactic has been successful in 28 states in creating a market for renewable energy, and if the U.S. is serious about building a carbon neutral economy and reducing global warming, a national RPS is not only necessary, it is vital.

Essentially, an RPS requires utilities to purchase a percentage of the energy they provide to customers from renewable sources.  The current energy bill making its way through Congress eases into the process by starting the renewable energy requirement at 6% in 2012 and increasing it steadily over the next decade. The schedule is as follows:
More than half of U.S. states already have RPS requirements of their own and this national schedule would not override those state provisions. In fact, many states today are already meeting the 6% standard proposed for 2012, and in some cases, far exceeding it. What may rustle some feathers among utilities in states without current RPS mandates is the swift progression of the proposed schedule. Moving from 6% to 11% in four years might be tough for states not already in the renewable energy game, especially in the midst of a major economic downturn.

Despite the growing pains associated with a national RPS, it is a requirement for a healthy renewable energy market in the U.S. Across all sectors, from solar to wind to biomass, the renewable energy industry has gained significant market traction, despite inconsistent federal support. But with a national RPS in place the U.S. government can provide the stability the industry needs to achieve economies of scale and mass adoption, which are critical to bringing the costs of renewable energy down and achieving grid parity, the point at which the price of electricity generated by renewable sources is equal to or cheaper than grid power.

The renewable energy industry will still experience growth without a national RPS, but it will be slower.  If America is serious about reducing its use of fossil fuels, it should set benchmarks to meet its goals.

Green jobs have been a particularly hot topic of late, especially in today’s conversations about job creation through the recently passed stimulus bill.  But what is a green job?  Truth is, no one really knows, and the jury is still out in the definition debate.  From a PR perspective, the lack of a definition creates challenges for those wishing to promote green jobs.  Having a clear understanding of what does and does not qualify as green is critical for making strategic outreach decisions.  Companies participating in green job conversations risk making fraudulent claims in an environment where definition changes rapidly.  Understanding the dynamics of the green jobs story may help companies avoid damaging relationships with key stakeholders and audiences.

Many are attempting to reign in this debate and come up with definitions that are general enough to be all-encompassing, but specific enough to be credible.  Critics point out that a lack of what constitutes a green job allows questionable businesses and industries to claim green job creds and potentially greenwash their activities.  This has some of us out there asking, will green jobs become the new greenwash?

Some argue that everyone is too caught up in defining green jobs and instead should just be focusing on creating good jobs, while others feel that only the narrowest definition will suffice to avoid greenwashing.  Kevin Doyle’s two part post at Grist on his findings and reactions from the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference recently held in Pittsburgh, reveals that current definitions of green jobs focus primarily on jobs in clean energy and efficient green buildings.  Within these areas, specifically jobs in manufacturing and building trades seems to be agreed upon to be the greenest of the green.  But surely there are more green jobs out there than this definition offers us.

Here is my favorite definition so far from the UN’s Green Jobs Report:
“We define green jobs as work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high-efficiency strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution.”

Until a definition that is both broad enough to be inclusive, yet narrow enough to avoid greenwashing is agreed upon, companies will be reluctant to publicize their green job offerings for fear of public backlash.  Arguably, if the US is to truly shift to a green economy, then all jobs will be green jobs, but until we get there, it is important to understand the definition debate when reaching out to media around your company’s green job opportunities.

While I’m not the world’s biggest fan of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” I can appreciate the benefits the show provides for a variety of deserving families, as well as the boost a product can receive from being featured on it. So when I heard one of my clients, Akeena Solar, would be providing a featured solar system to a family in Southern California that was being highlighted on the show, I started getting excited. What could be better for a solar company than a little celebrity endorsement from none other than the well-tanned, well-groomed Ty Pennington with the well-spiked hair?

When I first heard the news a few months ago, the episode wasn’t set to air until the end of March. Immediately, Akeena crews hustled down to San Bernardino to install the system in what amounted to a matter of hours. It was then that I started paying a bit more attention to the show: nearly every weekend the builders featured a new green building element—bamboo floors, eco-friendly paint, energy efficient appliances, and lots and lots of solar systems. And each time the green element was explained, it seemed to become more and more…well, normal, to feature these types of products. They look great and are environmentally friendly, the designers said. They are quality products with real cost-savings benefits, the builders said. They just made sense, Ty said.

Installing Akeena's Andalay Solar Panels

Had going green become mainstream?

For a while, my public relations team was able to rely on the uniqueness of solar when pitching the media. We could leverage the story of that kooky family down the block who installed a solar system, watched their meter spin backwards and never paid the electric company more than $12. But that was because not everyone had a solar system; people weren’t accustomed to seeing silicon panels popping up on rooftops everywhere. Fast-forward a few months, and solar—while not reaching the point of widespread adoption by any means—is no longer unfamiliar. Journalists tell me that the latest installation isn’t big enough, it isn’t sexy enough, and it’s something they’ve already covered. During those lonely hours watching late-night television, green suddenly begins to work its way into the vocabulary of infomercials and QVC. And green guides everywhere are popping up telling consumers how to shop.

It’s still a long road for green products to be the default choice in consumer’s brains. But with millions of viewers tuning in each weekend to see how easily green elements can be incorporated into homes, it’s going to get a lot easier to be green.

This week Think Equity LLC and Antenna Group welcomed cleantech industry investors, executives and policymakers to the Think Green Clean Technology and Alternative Energy Forum, in San Francisco. Attendees spanned every sector of the industry from wind and solar, to biofuels and batteries. At the cocktail reception, as in the sessions, people gathered to exchange the biggest breakthroughs of 2008 and get the scoop on what lies ahead for in 2009.

For decades, consumers understood that eating foods high in fat had serious health risks.  But it took years of education, standardized nutrition labels and even bans on trans fats before we started changing our ways. Now, we consult nutritional labels on menus, in the grocery store and in recipes before we even think of lifting fork to mouth.

This model of labeling can also be applied to working to reduce global climate change. In the US House, Democratic leaders say they’re planning to take up legislation on a US cap and trade system this year.   The sooner companies move to put carbon labels on products across the spectrum, the better they might fare when Carbon Cap and Trade regulations are eventually implemented.

The concept is pretty straightforward: identify and label the carbon footprint of products and services so businesses and consumers can make informed choices about the carbon impact of their purchases.   And as consumer brands start to adopt this practice, there is downward pressure on suppliers to capture their carbon information and consider reductions as well.  Sort of a trickle down “carbon-omics” effect.

Companies are not only taking an inventory of their carbon emissions throughout their manufacturing process, but they are also being honest with consumers about what their footprint is and plans for reducing it. The great difficulty lies in the execution and standardization of these labels.  Still, a whole host of businesses, advocacy groups and governments are jumping into the effort.  Here’s a look at what they’re doing:

The United Kingdom started forging this path in 2001, with the roll out of the pilot program Carbon Trust and its Carbon Reduction Label. The non-profit is helping a handful businesses become accountable for their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions including production, transportation, use, and disposal. Pepsico and the UK supermarket chain Tesco are the biggest participants.

In Japan, the Trade Ministry is overseeing an ambitious plan rolling out this year which will require carbon footprint labeling on food packaging and other products – a program the government sees as an integral step in reaching Japan’s stated goal of reducing total carbon emissions by up to 80% by 2050.

In the U.S., the Carbon Fund and the Climate Conservancy are doing similar work and California has its own Carbon Labeling Act of 2008 working to “establish a methodology for determining and communicating the carbon footprint of a consumer product[s]”. Other countries such as Sweden and South Korea are working on their own carbon labeling systems, all based on similar philosophies, but with different visual approaches.

Until enough time has passed and enough labels are out there to educate the public and have meaningful data to evaluate, carbon labeling will do more to help companies become aware of their own carbon footprints than sell more products.

But that’s ok: All new ideas with no benchmark go through cycles of trial and error. It took over five different automobile models to get the pedal and shifting layout we’re so accustomed to today (thank you Top Gear ), so there’s no reason carbon labeling should be any easier.

The day will come when companies will have to account for their carbon footprints and those that do it early are likely to have a competitive edge. However, carbon labels on their own are not going to reduce carbon emissions to the levels needed to stem the effects of climate change, but they can be used as a tool to raise awareness and help implement larger regulation. Just as in the calorie debate, it took bans on trans fats to drive industry to be more transparent about what’s in our food, carbon fat isn’t much different.

I was struck a few weeks ago by an atypical article in the Wall Street Journal – “The Return of Captain Planet.”

The children’s cartoon from the early 90s was indeed nostalgically familiar, as the green-haired eco-hero with a signature mullet was easily a personal favorite as a child. I had previously been stumped at the show’s vanishing act from the public sphere – in this era of compilation DVDs, rabid online fan communities, and ubiquitous streaming video available, how had the show never made a come back? So while thrilled the show was going to be available again, I had to wonder – is this really Wall Street Journal material?

Working with a reporter at the Journal on another story at the time, I was acutely aware of the publication’s need and desire to cover major, breaking news of global relevance to large, billion dollar markets. Did Captain Planet really meet this threshold?

Turns out, my musing as to the illogic of a show as popular Captain Planet, which based on a very un-scientific polling of my friends and compatriots was easily one of the most loved cartoons of the 90s, not having made a resurgence was apt, and allowed the Journal to explore serious marketing trends – how the nostalgia factor can mean big bucks for past brands (something Sony was trying to capture with other shows) and the power of social networking communities to build audiences.

We always advise clients who want coverage in the Journal to offer an exclusive angle or large financial numbers and specific details around deals and market opportunities. However, the trend story is a tried and true method, allowing a journalist to explore several important market changes simultaneously. Tapping into this is PR at its best.

So while I may not be linking any of my clients up with Captain Planet anytime soon, it’s a strong reminder of the power of the trend pitch.

When written in Chinese, the word “crisis” is composed of two characters - one represents danger and the other represents opportunity.  While I won’t try to put a positive spin on the economic turmoil that we face today, I will say that there is something to gain by seeking the positive. Without losing sight of that light at the end of the tunnel, we can alter our course temporarily while we wait for the storm to pass.

For some (including a number of my friends who have been laid off), this means applying to graduate school and “skipping out” as wage-earners altogether for a few years.  For others, it means delving deep into their creative and entrepreneurial spirits and seeking innovation at a time when nothing seems harder to do. There are many options to consider when presented with a roadblock, but the point is that the worst thing you can do is throw your hands up in despair and quit, for that could mean missing out on a golden opportunity.

It’s hard to believe, but the current $17 billion global drywall industry faced a supply shortage ten years ago as a result of the 1998 “building boom”. Building projects were stalled for months, new home construction stopped mid-way through production, and many families were left homeless. Yet, drywall factories were still running at capacity.

In this situation, the demand for drywall was directly related to the strong economy and consumer confidence. It also meant that drywall manufacturers were elated because they could sell 100% of their production, and the scarcity of the product meant that they could charge premium prices. As a consequence, it made economic sense for drywall companies to import the product from overseas instead of producing in the US. Shortly thereafter, the residential housing market collapsed, and an under-supply situation turned into an over-supply practically overnight–volumes and prices went into freefall.  Now, in 2009, the drywall market is the worst it has ever been.

This catastrophe within the building materials industry was an incentive for change. With oversupply in the local market and prices at an all-time low, it didn’t make sense to keep importing drywall. Instead of packing up and going home, people like Rod MacGregor, CEO of Antenna client CleanBoard, identified one segment of the market that was still growing: green building materials.  The drywall shortage gave way to expansion within this industry, and advancements in green/sustainable building materials market were born out of this disaster. According to McGraw-Hill Construction, green construction will grow from $12 billion in 2008 to $60 billion in 2010.  That’s the type of growth that the PC saw in the 80s and the Internet saw in the 90s.

Another popular Chinese saying is “be not afraid of going slowly; be afraid only of standing still.” While many markets are tumultuous right now, it’s worth remembering that there are numerous examples of technology and innovations that were developed in the face of hardship. Turning a crisis into an opportunity isn’t just a good idea, its good business.

AMI, AMR, demand-response, MDM, HAN, interoperability, scalability…if one left DistribuTECH 2009 in San Diego with anything, it was a better understanding and appreciation of  just how complex and intricate smart grid solutions can be—especially in today’s early stages.

A perfect illustration of this was the breakfast keynote, “The Smart Grid From A to Z: The Nation’s First Smart Grid City.” The brave moderator Teresa Hansen (Editor in Chief of Utility/ T&D Automation Engineering) handled no less than eight panelists with the skill of a rancher herding cattle. Companies like Xcel Energy, SmartSynch, and Gridpoint shared their work plugging in Boulder, Colorado with an AMI or advanced metering infrastructure. Of Boulder’s homes, 50 percent are now wirelessly equipped with automated meter reading (AMR).

Deals, deals, deals!

Perhaps because of the recent economic slowdown (and many canceled flights due to snow storms and ice) it seemed there were fewer people than normal at the event, but that only served to concentrate the quality of the crowd. The $4.5 billion for smart grid technology in the Federal Stimulus package had utility companies swarming the exhibit hall searching for how they would spend their 50 percent matching grants.  Traditionally, utility companies are slow adopters of new technology, preferring to take a wait and see attitude. Spending on average has been approximately $1 billion on smart grid technology annually, but since the stimulus money must be spent before 2010, there was definitely an step-up in pace and a keen sense of “getting deals done” in the air.

Removed from the flurry of exhibitors, chatter in the conference halls focused more on the actual language of stimulus package. As of this writing, it denotes the $4.5 billion to be used only for technology that is based on IP languages and open networks. Silver Spring Networks (of which Al Gore is a board member) has been lobbying aggressively in congress for the adoption of this language.

But others in the industry such as Landis+Gyr and Elster, as well as a third of the utilities, say today’s vendors use technology with proprietary networks and such language could preclude a large number of promising companies from benefiting from the stimulus bill. The technology thus far has been based on proprietary networks, so change will come hard. However, a vote on the bill isn’t expected for a few more weeks, so experts say there’s still time to iron out this delicate phrasing.

It seems clear that smart grid technology has a strong future. Demand for electricity is only expected to rise and if we can bring some sensibility to just how we use electrical power, perhaps the better off we and the planet will be.

This week, some of San Francisco’s Internet and CleanTech community amassed at Amante in North Beach to strengthen ties and share insight into what 2009 holds.

CleanTech professionals, journalists, and investors share drinks and talk shop.

Marty McMahon and Anna Binder share their take on CleanTech with GreenTech Media's John Keough and Meredyth Masterson.

Paul Hsaio of New Enterprise Associates talks information technology and energy with Kevin Matthews of National Strategies.

CMEA Capital's Risha Band talks investments with Matt Horton of @ Ventures and Ed Beardsworth of Energy Technology Advisors.